From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23337 invoked by alias); 24 Jun 2010 19:25:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 23319 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Jun 2010 19:25:35 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 24 Jun 2010 19:25:29 +0000 Received: (qmail 3337 invoked from network); 24 Jun 2010 19:25:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO orlando.localnet) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 24 Jun 2010 19:25:28 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: Joel Brobecker Subject: Re: [RFA/commit/Win64] Remove new extra leading underscore in symbol name Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 19:25:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.2 (Linux/2.6.32-22-generic; KDE/4.4.2; x86_64; ; ) Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Tom Tromey , ktietz70@googlemail.com References: <1276813536-31761-1-git-send-email-brobecker@adacore.com> <201006241942.32722.pedro@codesourcery.com> <20100624190021.GJ2595@adacore.com> In-Reply-To: <20100624190021.GJ2595@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201006242025.25966.pedro@codesourcery.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2010-06/txt/msg00554.txt.bz2 On Thursday 24 June 2010 20:00:21, Joel Brobecker wrote: > No, you're probably right. I was slowly realizing this while I was > updating the comment I wrote in the previous patch. The problem is: > what's the right way to detect how the binary was built? I don't think there's a "right way". At least, I can't think of one. Maybe there's some heuristic way, like looking for some well known symbol in the implementation namespace for two or three underscores, say. Always likely to fail, for several reasons, one of them that you still misfix asm defined underscored symbols. And you'd probably want to consider handling the reverse -- missing underscores, in gdb/bfd's perspective. Very fragile, if you ask me. > Right now, > the bfd change is a major incompatibility nightmare since minimal > symbols and symbols no longer have the same name. It was an ABI change. Incompatibilities are sort of expected by design, when all the tools don't agree on the ABI. :-) > GDB needs to be able to support both (IMO). Does the --enable-leading-mingw64-underscores switch affect bfd as well, and fix this? While supporting both sounds ideal, in practice, I'd think it to be enough for vendors to support gdb builds that match the ABI of their compiler. Or two builds, if they care, until the old ABI is phased out. -- Pedro Alves